Follow us!

    Post: Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article

    Posted by Sharon Kramer on 1/24/07

    Very simple, as we have explained repeatedly and at length.

    First, there was one lead author who was given the
    assignment (the task was initiated by ACOEM, not the
    author) and responsibility for putting together the draft
    and that person did not have a conflict of interest.
    Second, the statement is not the opinion of one person,
    which is what is implied when there is a disclosure; it
    went through a rigorous process of review and many
    constructive modifications before the final statement.

    The primary issue, in fact, is the validity of the
    statement. Going round and round on this will not change
    the weight of evidence, which does not favor the "toxic
    mold" hypothesis.

    Tee L. Guidotti
    President, ACOEM

    Dr. Guidotti,

    With all due respect you have not "explained it at length".
    The ACOEM mold statement is NOT consistent with other
    medical papers on the matter, including the Institute of
    Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report (IOM

    If there is nothing to this, then why did the story make
    front page news of the Wall Street Journal? The answer is
    because the reporter diligently researched the story for
    over six months. The Wall Street Journal article is exactly
    correct in it's reporting of the questionable genesis of
    the ACOEM Mold Statement. ACOEM knowingly promoted a
    litigation defense argument for the financial benefit of
    some and at the expense of the sick.

    The ACOEM makes a key finding that is not based upon any
    accepted scientific methodology. The method used by ACOEM
    to make this key finding is specifically pointed out within
    the IOM Report as not accepted scientific methodology.

    No other paper before or after the ACOEM mold statement
    professes to be able to establish that humans could not be
    exposed to enough mycotoxins within a damp indoor
    environment to elicit symptoms of ill health. Only ACOEM
    and other papers that cite ACOEM support this
    unscientifically established finding.

    Can you tell me which of the 83 references for this
    purported review piece make the finding of implausibility
    of human illness from indoor mycotoxin exposure "even in
    the most vulnerable of subpopulations?".

    No you cannot. None of the 83 references listed support
    this finding.

    Can you name any scientific research paper that supports
    the following calculations within the ACOEM Mold Statement?

    "Airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would
    deliver a comparable dose of spores can be estimated by
    assuming that all inhaled spores are retained and using
    standard default values for human subpopulations of
    particular interest78 – very small infants,† school-age
    children,†† and adults.††† The no-effect dose in rats (3 x
    106 spores/kg) corresponds to continuous 24-hour exposure
    to 2.1 x 106 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6 x 106 spores/m3 for
    a school-age child, or 15.3 x 106 spores/m3 for an adult."

    No. You cannot. There are none.

    It is not now, nor has ever been accepted science to
    extrapolate from high dose, acute rodent data and directly
    correlate to indicate human mycotoxin exposure. NO ONE
    but the ACOEM has professed to be able to accomplish this
    feat of mathematical magic.

    Isn't it true that Dr. Hardin and Dr. Kelman, who the ACOEM
    specifically brought into the organization to author the
    mold statement, simply applied math calculations to the
    data from one rodent study to make the above calculations
    and subsequent finding of the implausibility of human
    illness from the matter?

    While other papers indicate more research is need and that
    not all is known, the ACOEM Mold Statement professes to
    prove a negative...that serious illness from mold/mycotoxin
    exposure is not plausible. (Or according to the authors
    when on the witness stand, "could not be"). The body of
    evidence is growing daily that humans are experiencing
    serious illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure. It is
    a non-sequitur conclusion, not founded upon science, yet
    used extensively within the courtroom to deny financial
    liability for stakeholders of moldie buildings.

    When shared with commerce, the authors of the ACOEM mold
    statement say it translates in lay terminology to
    mean, " “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious
    secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers
    would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual
    scientific study.”

    Is this really a statement the members of ACOEM may be
    proud of?

    The amount of devastation through the known misinfomation,
    being promoted as science, by an esteemed medical
    association such as ACOEM has caused immeasurable misery to
    the lives of many. Not only are the sick unable to obtain
    viable medical treatment because their physicians are being
    misinformed; but many of these people should not have
    become sick in the first place. Your misinformation is
    causing the unaware to be unnecessarily exposed to a
    substance that can indeed cause serious illness. Your
    misinformation then allows them to become sicker because it
    keeps their physicians ignorant as to what to do when faced
    with a mold patient.

    But the point of the paper was to keep the physicians
    uninformed. It is more difficult for the sick to prove
    their illnesses, should they find themselves in litigation
    with a stakeholder of a moldie building. It is an old
    trick right out of the Big Tobacco science manual.

    And you, Dr. Guidotti, are correct when you write, "The
    primary issue, in fact, is the validity of the statement".
    That is the primary issue and it is not a valid scientific

    What ever happened to "Physician, first do no harm"?

    My apologies for the directness of this email. I do not
    know how else to say it. ACOEM is exposed on the front
    page of the Wall Street Journal, and still you attempt to
    profess innocence.

    Sharon Kramer

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.